An Automatic Text Mining Framework for Knowledge Discovery on the Web - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


PPT – An Automatic Text Mining Framework for Knowledge Discovery on the Web PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 2076ed-ZDc1Z


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation

An Automatic Text Mining Framework for Knowledge Discovery on the Web


... knowledge - Most efficient way to store, retrieve, and transfer vast amount of information ... from testing companies to be the targets of analysis ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:84
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 63
Provided by: wingyan


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: An Automatic Text Mining Framework for Knowledge Discovery on the Web

An Automatic Text Mining Framework for Knowledge
Discovery on the Web
  • Wingyan Chung
  • The University of Arizona
  • March 30, 2004

  • NSF and NIJ Grants
  • Dr. Hsinchun Chen, Dr. Jay F. Nunamaker , Dr. J.
    Leon Zhao, Dr. Richard T. Snodgrass, Dr. D.
    Terence Langendoen, Dr. Olivia Sheng
  • Dept. of MIS, U. of Arizona
  • Artificial Intelligence Lab, U. of Arizona

  • Introduction
  • Literature Review
  • Research Formulation and Approach
  • Empirical Studies on Business Intelligence
  • Previous Work
  • Building a BI Search Portal for Integrated
    Analysis on Heterogeneous Information
  • Using Visualization Techniques to Discover BI
  • Automating Business Stakeholder Analysis
  • Conclusions, Limitations and Future Directions

The Internet
  • Advances in electronic network and IT support
    ubiquitous access to and convenient storage of
  • They have changed human lives fundamentally
    (Negroponte, 2003)
  • The role of global electronic network
  • Facilitation in communication and transaction
  • The Internet emerges as the largest global
    electronic network
  • Rapid growth (Lyman Varian, 2000)
  • Advantages in information storage and retrieval,

Problems of the Internet
Information Overload
Convenient storage has made information
exploration difficult
Heterogeneity and unmonitored quality of
information on the Web
Information is unreliable
Hard to know all stakeholders
Interconnected nature of the Web complicates
understanding of relationships
Research Questions
How can we develop an automatic text mining
approach to address the problems of knowledge
discovery on the Web?
How effective and efficient does such an approach
assist human beings in discovering knowledge on
the Web?
What lessons can be learned from applying such an
approach in the context of human-computer
interaction (HCI)?
Literature Review
  • Knowledge and Knowledge Management
  • Human-Computer Interaction
  • Text Mining for Web Analysis

  • Revealed underlying assumptions in KM
  • Implied different roles of knowledge in
  • Textual knowledge - Most efficient way to store,
    retrieve, and transfer vast amount of information
  • Advanced processing needed to obtain knowledge
  • Traditionally done by humans
  • It is useful to review the discipline of
    Human-Computer Interaction to understand human
    analysis needs

(No Transcript)
Human Analysis Needs
  • Satisfied when the problem in information seeking
    is solved (Kuhlthau, 1993 Kuhlthau, Spink and
    Cool 1992 Saracevic, Kantor, Chamis and
    Trivison, 1988 Choo et al., 2000)
  • Involve value-adding processes
  • Information seeking locating useful information
    from large amount of data
  • Intelligence generation acquisition,
    interpretation, collation, assessment, and
    exploitation of the information obtained (Davis,
  • Relationship extraction deriving patterns and
    relationships from data and information

Knowledge Discovery
Need Automating KD Processes
  • Human beings can undertake KD processes by
    applying their experience and knowledge
  • But inefficient and not scalable
  • Text mining has been identified as a set of
    technologies that can automate the knowledge
    discovery process (Trybula, 1999)
  • Stages information acquisition, extraction,
    mining, presentation
  • Need more preprocessing when considering KD on
    the Web (more noisy, voluminous, heterogeneous
    sources) Collection building, conversion,
  • Evolved from work in automatic text processing

(No Transcript)
Text Mining Technologies
  • For Web KD
  • Web mining techniques resource discovery on the
    Web, information extraction from Web resources,
    and uncovering general patterns (Etzioni, 1996)
  • Pattern extraction, meta searching, spidering
  • Web page summarization (Hearst, 1994 McDonald
    Chen, 2002)
  • Web page classification (Glover et al., 2002 Lee
    et al., 2002 Kwon Lee, 2003)
  • Web page clustering (Roussinov Chen, 2001 Chen
    et al., 1998 Jain Dube, 1988)
  • Web page visualization (Yang et al., 2003
    Spence, 2001 Shneiderman, 1996)
  • These techniques and approaches can be used to
    automate important parts of human analyses

  • Human analyses are precise but not efficient and
    not scalable to the growth of the Web
  • A number of text mining techniques exist but
    there has not been a comprehensive approach to
    addressing problems of knowledge discovery on the
    Web, namely,
  • Information overload
  • Heterogeneity and unmonitored quality of
  • Difficulties of identifying relationships on the
  • The HCI aspects of using a text mining approach
    to knowledge discovery on the Web have not been
    widely explored

Research Formulation and Approach
(No Transcript)
(No Transcript)
  • System Development (Nunamaker et al., 1991)
  • A Multi-methodological Approach
  • Conceptual frameworks, Mathematical models
  • Observation, Experimentation
  • Validation
  • Effectiveness (accuracy, precision, recall),
    efficiency (time)
  • Information quality (Wang Strong, 1996)
  • User satisfaction (subjective ratings and

Domain of Study
  • Business intelligence applications
  • BI is increasingly becoming an important practice
    in today's organizations
  • More than 40 surveyed individuals by Fuld Co.
    have organized BI efforts (Fuld et al., 2002)
  • Collecting and analyzing BI have become a
  • SCIP has over 50 chapters worldwide
  • A new journal called Journal of Competitive
    Intelligence and Management was launched in 2003
  • Vibrant growth of e-commerce calls for better
    approaches to knowledge discovery on the Web
    (Morgan-Stanley, 2003)
  • Businesses use the Web to share and disseminate
  • Many companies are conducting business using the
    Internet platform (e.g.,,
  • Our focus is on the first category

Empirical Studies on Business Intelligence
Previous Work (1)
  • Building a BI search portal for integrated
    analysis on heterogeneous information
  • The portal provides post-retrieval analysis
    (summarization, categorization, meta-searching)
  • Conducted a systematic evaluation to test
    CBizPort's ability to assist human analysis of
    Chinese BI
  • Results
  • Searching and browsing performance comparable to
    regional Chinese SEs
  • CBizPort could significantly augment existing SEs
  • Subjects strongly favored analysis capability of
    CBizPort summarizer and categorizer

Previous Work (2)
  • Applying Web page visualization techniques to
    discovering BI
  • Two browsing methods (Web community and Knowledge
    map) were developed to help visualize the
    landscape of search engine results
  • WC uses a genetic algorithm KM uses MDS
  • The methods were empirically compared against a
    graphical search engine (Kartoo) and a textual
    result list (RL) display
  • Results KM gt Kartoo (in terms of effectiveness,
    efficiency, and users' ratings on point
    placement) WC gt RL (in terms of effectiveness,
    efficiency, and user satisfaction)

Using Web Page Classification Techniques to
Automate Business Stakeholder Analysis
Current Business Environment
  • Networked business environment facilitates
    information sharing and collaboration (Applegate,
  • Collaborative commerce automating business
    processes by electronic sharing of information
  • Knowledge sharing about stakeholder relationships
    through companies Web sites and pages
  • Textual content or annotated hyperlinks

  • Knowledge hidden in interconnected Web resources
  • Posing challenges to identifying and classifying
    various business stakeholders
  • e.g., A companys manager may not know who are
    using their companys Web resources
  • Need better approaches to uncovering such
  • Enhance understanding of business stakeholders
    and competitive environments

Related Work
  • Stakeholder theories have evolved over time while
    the view of firm changes
  • Production view (19th century) Suppliers and
  • Managerial view (20th century) Owners,
  • Stakeholder view (1960-80s) (Freeman, 1984)
    Competitors, Governments, News Media,
  • E-commerce view (1990s - now) International
    partners, Online communities, Multinational

  • P Partners/suppliers, E Employees/Unions, C
  • S Shareholders/investors, U
    Education/research institutions, MMedia/Portals,
  • G Public/government, R Recruiters, V
    Reviewers, O Competitors,
  • T Trade associations, F Financial
    institutions, I Political groups,
  • N SIG/Communities
  • Ordered by their relevance to stakeholder types
    appearing on the Web

Stakeholder Research and BI
  • Previous research rarely considers the many
    opportunities offered by the Web for stakeholder
    analysis, e.g.,
  • Business intelligence, obtained from the business
    environment, is likely to help in stakeholder
  • Tools and techniques have been developed to
    exploit business intelligence on the Web
  • PageRank (Brin Page 1998), HITS (Kleinberg
    1999), Web IF (Ingwersen 1998)
  • External links mirror social communication
    phenomena (e.g., stakeholder relationships)
  • Ong et al. 2001 Tan et al. 2002 Reiterer et al.
    2000 Chung et al. 2003 Reid 2003 Byrne 2003
  • Lack stakeholder analysis capability

Existing BI Tools and Techniques
  • Exploit structural and textual content
  • But commercial BI tools lack analysis capability
    (Fuld et al. 2003)
  • Need to automate stakeholder classification, a
    primary step in stakeholder analysis
  • Automatic classification of Web pages is a
    promising way to alleviate the problem

Web Page Classification
  • The process of assigning pages to predefined
  • Helps to classify business stakeholders Web
    pages and enables companies to understand the
    competitive environment better
  • Major approaches k-nearest neighbor, neural
    network, Support Vector Machines, and Naïve
    Bayesian network (Chen Chau 2004)
  • Previous work
  • Kwon and Lee 2003 Mladenic 1998 Furnkranz 1999
    Lee et al. 2002 Glover et al. 2002
  • NN and SVM achieved good performance

Feature selection in Web Page Classification
  • Features considered
  • Page textual content full text, page title,
  • Link related textual content anchor text,
    extended anchor text, URL strings
  • Page structural information words, page
    out-links, inbound outlinks (i.e., links that
    point to its own company), outbound outlinks
    (i.e., links that point to external Web sites)
  • Methods for selection
  • Human judgment / Use of domain lexicon
  • Feature ratios and thresholding
  • Frequency counting / MI

Research Gaps
  • Stakeholder research provides rich theoretical
    background but rarely considers the tremendous
    opportunities offered by the Web for stakeholder
  • Conclusions drawn from old data may not reflect
    rapid development in e-commerce
  • Existing BI tools lack stakeholder analysis
  • Automatic Web page classification techniques are
    well developed but have not yet been applied to
    business stakeholder classification

Research Questions
  • How can we apply our automatic text mining
    approach to business stakeholder analysis on the
  • How can Web page textual content and structural
    information be used in such an approach?
  • What are the effectiveness (measured by accuracy)
    and efficiency (measured by time requirement) of
    such an approach for business stakeholder
    classification on the Web?

Application of the Approach
  • Purpose To automatically identify and classify
    the stakeholders of businesses on the Web in
    order to facilitate stakeholder analysis
  • Rationale
  • Business stakeholders Web pages should contain
    identifiable clues that can be used to
    distinguish their types
  • Web textual and structural content information is
    important for understanding the clues for
    stakeholder classification
  • Two generic steps
  • Creation of a domain lexicon that contains key
    textual attributes for identifying stakeholders
  • Automatic classification of Web pages
    (stakeholders) linking to selected companies
    based on textual and structural content of Web

Building a Research Testbed
  • Business stakeholders of the KM World top 100 KM
    companies (McKellar 2003)
  • Used backlink search function of the Google
    search engine to search for Web pages having
    hyperlinks pointing to the companies Web sites
  • For each host company, we considered only the
    first 100 results returned
  • Removed self links and extra links from same
  • After filtering, we obtained 3,713 results in
  • Randomly selected the results of 9 companies as
    training examples (414 ? 283 pages stored in DB)

Creation of a Domain Lexicon
  • Manually read through all the Web pages of the
    nine companies business stakeholders to identify
    one-, two-, and three-word terms that were
    indicative of business stakeholder types (Thanks
    to Edna Reid)
  • Extracted a total of 329 terms (67 one-word
    terms, 84 two-word terms, and 178 three-word
    terms), e.g.,

Automatic Stakeholder Classification
  • Three steps

Manual Tagging
Feature selection
Automatic classification
Manual Tagging
Manual tagging
Feature selection
Automatic classification
  • Manually classified each of the stakeholder pages
    of the nine selected companies into one of the 11
    stakeholder types (based on our literature
    review) (thanks Edna again)

Feature Selection
Manual tagging
Feature selection
Automatic classification
  • Structural content features binary variables
    indicating whether certain lexicon terms are
    present in the structural content
  • A term could be a one-, two-, or three-word long
  • Considered occurrences in title, extended anchor
    text, and full text (Lee et al. 2002)
  • Textual content features frequencies of
    occurrences of the extracted features (see next
  • The first set of features was selected based on
    human knowledge, while the second was selected
    based on statistical aggregation (Glover et al.
    2002), thereby combining both kinds of knowledge

Feature Selection (Textual Content)
Manual tagging
Feature selection
Automatic classification
An Example(A media stakeholder type)
Link to the host company (ClearForest)
lthtmlgt ltheadgt ltmeta http-equiv"Content-Type"
content"text/html charsetiso-8859-1"
/gt lttitlegtDavid Schatsky Search and Discovery in
the Post-Cold War Eralt/titlegt ... ltpgtI just saw a
demo by lta href "http//"gt
ClearForest, lt/agt a company that provides tools
for analyzing unstructured textual information.
It's truly amazing, and truly the search tool for
the post-Cold War era. ... lt/pgt
... lt/bodygt lt/htmlgt
HTML hyperlink and extended anchor text
Automatic Classification
Manual tagging
Automatic classification
Feature selection
  • A feedforward/backpropagation neural network
    (Lippman 1987) and SVM (Joachims, 1998) were used
    due to their robustness in automatic
  • Train the algorithms using the stakeholder pages
    of the 9 training companies and obtain a model or
    sets of weights for classification
  • Test the algorithms on sets of stakeholder pages
    of 10 companies different from training examples

Evaluation Methodology
  • Motivation to know effectiveness and efficiency
    of the approach
  • Consisted of algorithm comparison, feature
    comparison, and a user evaluation study
  • Compared the performance of neural network (NN),
    SVM, baseline method (random classification),
    human judgment
  • Compared structural content features, textual
    content features, and a combination of the two
    sets of features
  • 36 Univ. of Arizona business school students
    performed manual stakeholder classification and
    provided comments on the approach

Performance Measures
  • Effectiveness
  • Efficiency time used (in minutes)
  • User subjective ratings and comments

User Study
  • Each subject was introduced to stakeholder
    analysis and was asked to use our system named
    Business Stakeholder Analyzer (BSA) to browse
    companies stakeholder lists
  • We randomly selected three companies
    (Intelliseek, Siebel, and WebMethods) from
    testing companies to be the targets of analysis

Definitions of business stakeholders
Hypotheses (1)
  • H1 NN and SVM would achieve similar
    effectiveness when the same set of features was
  • Both techniques were robust
  • Procedure created 30 sets of stakeholder pages
    by randomly selecting groups of 5 stakeholder
    pages of each of the 10 testing companies

Hypotheses (2)
  • H2 NN and SVM would perform better than the
    baseline method
  • Incorporated human knowledge and machine learning
    capability into the classification
  • H3 Human judgment in stakeholder classification
    would achieve effectiveness similar to that of
    machine learning, but that the former is less
  • They could make use of the Web pages textual and
    structural content in classifying stakeholders
  • Humans might spend more time on it

Hypotheses (3)
  • H4 H5 examined the use of different types of
    features in automatic stakeholder classification
  • H4 structural textual
  • H5 combined gt structural or textual alone

Experimental Results
  • Algorithm Comparison
  • H1 not confirmed
  • NN performed significantly differently than SVM
    when the same set of features was used
  • NN performed significantly better than SVM when
    structural content features were used
  • SVM performed significantly better than NN when
    textual content features or a combination of both
    feature sets were used
  • More studies would be needed to identify optimal
    feature sets for each algorithm

Effectiveness of the Approach
  • H2 confirmed
  • The use of any combination of features and
    techniques in automatic stakeholder
    classification outperformed the baseline method
  • Our approach has integrated human knowledge with
    machine-learned information related to
    stakeholder types
  • and was significantly better than a random

Comparing with Human Judgment
  • H3b and H3d (efficiency) confirmed
  • Human 22 minutes (average), varied
  • Algorithms 1 30 seconds (average)
  • Showing high efficiency of using the automatic
    approach to facilitate stakeholder analysis
  • H3a and H3c (effectiveness) not confirmed
  • Humans were significantly more effective than NN
    or SVM
  • Could rely on more clues in performing
  • Experience in Internet browsing and searching
    helped narrow down choices

However, the algorithms achieved better
within-class accuracies than humans in frequently
occurring types
Use of Features
  • To our surprise, hypotheses H4a-b, H5a-b, and H5d
    were not confirmed
  • Different feature sets yielded different
    performances of the algorithms
  • Structural features enabled NN to achieve better
    effectiveness than textual ones
  • Textual and combined features enabled SVM to
    achieve better effectiveness than structural ones
  • Do not know exactly why
  • Future research studying the effect of features
    and the nature of algorithms
  • H5c was confirmed structural content feature did
    not add value to the performance of SVM

Subjects Comments
  • Overwhelmingly positive
  • It would be very helpful!
  • Thats cool!
  • I want to use it.

Conclusions, Limitations and Future Directions
  • General conclusion our approach helped alleviate
    information overload and enhance human analysis
    on the Web
  • Conclusions related to this presentation
  • Showed how our approach could be applied to
    business stakeholder analysis on the Web
  • Integrated Human expert knowledge
    machine-learned knowledge
  • Promising in terms of effectiveness and
  • Could potentially facilitate business analysts
    interaction with automated stakeholder analysis
    systems in todays networked enterprises

  • Developing and validating a useful and
    comprehensive approach to knowledge discovery on
    the Web
  • New integration and application of techniques
    together with appropriate human intervention
  • Contributions related to this presentation
  • Helps BI analysts to understand business
    stakeholders more efficiently
  • The feature selection approach can be used as a
    way of knowledge acquisition
  • Extends current stakeholder research by providing
    a new perspective for automated analysis

  • Technical limitations (e.g., efficiency)
  • Lab experiment limits external validity
  • Limitations in the presented study
  • Limited data provided by Google
  • The use of business school students in our study
    ? reduces external validity
  • Limitation in identifying stakeholder
    relationships (only rely on hyperlinks)
  • Limited domain knowledge

Using Web Page Classification for Business
Stakeholder Analysis
Building a BI Search Portal
Applying Web Page Visualization to Exploring BI
Contributions Generic applicability Enhance
knowledge discovery on the Web Better
understanding in HCI
Problems Information overload Unreliable
information Complicated relationships
Future Directions
  • Related to the presented study
  • Automate next steps of business stakeholder
  • Type-specific stakeholder analysis
  • Strategic management
  • Cross-regional issues
  • Other domains (e.g., terrorism)
  • New text mining and visualization techniques, and
    related HCI issues
  • Collaborative commerce topics
  • Integration of the approach with business process
    logics, collaborative technologies